Tag Archives: COVID-19

What comes next?

Since last October, our team has had many discussions about this very article. We all knew that it would happen, it was simply unavoidable. This article is not only exposing the legal violations, policy violations, and abuse from Facebook, this article is serving as a testament of the results from these abuses. While we have written articles previously discussing what was being done to our team, it was agreed that we needed to write the conclusion to those articles.

If you followed us on Facebook, you already know what the results were. If you’ve been following, in general, you already know what has been occurring. However, if you aren’t aware, let’s start by giving you a quick rundown to get you up to speed on things.

In September, Facebook had done an unknown action that prevented our bot from automatically posting our articles to our Facebook page, this began shortly before the other events, which will be discussed shortly, began. It took us a few weeks to even notice that this had happened. While our website showed that Facebook was connected, Twitter was connected, and so fourth, the posts simply were not going up on Facebook. After attempting to resolve this issue, with no success, we began manually posting the articles.

Though this was rather annoying, we did what had to be done. For a few weeks things were fine; this changed around October 20th. One by one, admins of the WoC page were being completely blocked out of their profiles. They were unable to comment, like, post, share, etc. However, they were able to send instant messages. In total, five of the seven admins were completely blocked from doing anything on their accounts. Facebook offered no explanation, no resolution, not even a policy that was violated. We began sending daily disputes, though Facebook blocked us from doing this as well. Finally, out of desperation, I personally began sending messages to them via the “feedback” feature. After doing this for about a week, that too was blocked.

These blocks lasted until December 19th. The entire time, we could do nothing aside watch as the platform suffered from our lack of activity. During this time, the admin who had not been affected, took control of the platform. Finally, when we were unblocked, it was decided that we would tread cautiously; this did not work.

On December 25th, I got online to four messages. Once again, the admin were blocked on Facebook. I immediately checked my profile to find that, like last time, it was also blocked. This block lasts for thirty days. As with the previous block, we have no ability to contest it. In fact, looking into the “violations” section, shows nothing. Essentially, as far as Facebook is concerned, we aren’t blocked. Though I have, once again, begun sending feedback to the site, that has now also been blocked. With this, our team had a difficult choice to make. Do we continue operating on what is clearly a site that willfully violates constitutional rights, or do we shutdown?

With much discussion, we removed the platform from the public eye, we unpublished the page. While this was a move that none of us had wanted, there simply was no alternative action. Facebook has made it abundantly clear that we are being targeted, a violation of their harassment policy, in fact. Extending beyond that, it contradicts the very words of Mark Zuckerberg, who had stated that Facebook would not censor free speech. With the removal of our Facebook page, we effectively lost more than 97% of our followers. If you aren’t aware of what this means, it means War on Corruption is on a path toward shutting its doors, or the difficult path of having to rebuild the entire platform; at this time, we are still discussing our future.

Meanwhile, Facebook is not held accountable. We aren’t the first platform to be censored out in this way. CopBlock, Freedom Thought Project, and many others have been targeted by the social media giant. Around 2018, we witnessed what many called the “Facebook purge.” During this time dozens of independent media platforms were simply shutdown by Facebook. No explanation, no reason, not even an email explaining why. Thankfully, many of these platforms recovered. Hopefully, with time, we shall too.

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Injured employee mistreated?

Unless you’re completely out of your mind, the last thing in the world that you would want to do is injure yourself at work. With any sort of injury, there is a loss of income, dealing with legal things that you may not had expected, and the list goes on. This story is brought to...

This content is for Basic and Gold Status members only.
Login Join Now

Disabled individuals targeted?

It goes without say that we should all be entitled to medical care. For some people, this form of care means life or death. However, in all the splendor joys that 2020 has already provided us, we are finding that, for many people, medical care is outright being denied. In fact, for specific groups of people, they aren’t even being allowed in the door before being asked to leave the facility. Why? It all boils down to the mask mandate. I understand that many people will disagree with this article. I also understand that I will most likely catch a lot of grief for writing it, however, I simply refuse to sit back and watch as specific groups of disabled people continue to be targeted, denied their basic right to medical. After all, we have already seen other rights be stripped away, we’ll get into that also.

Mask Mandate

First, and foremost, it is important to understand that the mask mandate is that: a mandate. Although many people will try to claim this to be law, it’s not. The difference in a mandate and law comes down to a variety of factors, how it came to be is among them. While state and federal laws get run through every government house known to man, the mandate had never undergone such a process. Basically, this makes it unenforceable by law enforcement, though they are attempting to enforce it anyway. The issue in them enforcing it can be chalked down into what the very definition of their occupation: to uphold and enforce the law.

Initially, the mask mandate was a suggestion. Never intended to be required, the government composed a list of “safety” procedures for people to follow, if they so wished. However, what we ended up seeing completely opposed this initial stance. In a progressively slow measure, this request grew into the mandate. Some of the “safety” guidelines are as follow:

  1. Stay at least six feet apart from one another. Apparently, we are facing the only known virus in history that has a travel distance of six feet.
  2. Wear a mask. This is something we are going to really get into shortly.
  3. Avoid large crowds. Goes back to the whole six feet portion.

Enforcement vs. your rights

In enforcing this potential violation to the constitution, as well as civil liberties, we have seen the outright measures our very own government are willing to take. In the past several months, we have seen churches forced into closing their doors and their ministers arrested upon refusing to do so. If you aren’t well versed in the Constitution yet, let’s just recap, shall we?

Under the first amendment, you have the right to free speech, the press, religion, and so on. In regards to religion, the amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hence where their idea of enforcement now becomes a problem.

By forcing religious institutions into closing their doors, they directly violated the first amendment. Regardless of the reason as to why this was done, it changes nothing in regards to the result. To take it further, those who refused to cease practicing within their religious institutions, were simply arrested. Never, in the history of the United States, has a minister been arrested for refusing to terminate their religious practices; of course, this is no longer a truthful statement.

Within the mask mandate, there are exemptions that must be noted. It is these exemptions that have lead to this article. The exemptions within themselves aren’t the problem, it’s how businesses treat individuals who are exempted that has become the problem.

  1. pre-existing respiratory conditions.
  2. seizures
  3. sensory disorders, such as those associated with autism.

The above are only a few examples of things that are exempted. Regardless of this, corporations, and even medical facilities, are making blanket policies that force everybody, exempted or not, to wear these masks. Furthermore, for those who are exempted, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help with fighting these illegal policies. So, let’s go ahead and arm our disabled friends with a few pieces of legal information that may be of assistance.

The ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is quickly becoming a critical law to know. Within this law, there are protections that could translate into the enforcement of these corporate policies, as well as the mandate itself though the mandate has exemptions for this very reason. The two titles that we are going to specifically focus on are II and III of the ADA.

Title II

“Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance.”

Title III

Title III focuses on private businesses (also known as public accommodations). All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if it is readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such hotels, restaurants, bars, theaters, grocery stores, hardware stores, dry-cleaners, banks, professional offices of health care providers, lawyers, and accountants, hospitals, private bus or train stations, museums, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, places of education, day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, and golf courses to name a few.

To read this in its entirety, please visit this link.

Essentially, these titles prevent corporations, etc. from denying disabled individuals services solely on the grounds of their disabilities. For those who are being denied, as we’ve recently seen, this act will quickly become your best friend in fighting these unjust policies.

The mandate has been met with such controversy that lawsuits are currently ongoing. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and Texas are just a few states to mention. Rather or not you are for, or against the mandate, one thing must be clear: For the disabled individuals who cannot wear such devices, life has become a much more difficult challenge than what was ever needed. Rather it requires a revocation, overhaul, or even clarification of the mandate, to resolve the issues that are apparently present, it is, without a doubt, that action must be taken.

COVID-19: Reality Check

For months now, we have seen abuse from the government unlike anything before. While most Americans are perfectly fine with the loss of their first, fourth, and even sixth amendment rights, some are beginning to wake up. As a result of this, social disobedience is quickly becoming a common trend. With so much confusion, who is in the right?

The introduction of COVID-19 introduced more than a new potential threat, it brought out mass fear and even hysteria. As the government began learning about the virus, they implimented some rather debatable “safety procedures.” Social distancing, masks, that sort of thing has now become common practice. However, many debate as to rather or not they went to far.

First amendment

Under the first amendment, all Americans are granted the freedom to practice their religions. What this means is the government has no legal grounds to interfere with this, or other, rights. However, since the COVID-19 situation began, we have seen that very ordeal unfold. In several cases, those who have dared to break the “law” of not going to church, were met with arrest. How is this possible? A simple loophole is all it takes, more on that later.

On social medias, such as Facebook and Youtube, those who are speaking out against the governments’ actions, are finding themselves censored, ability to post/comment blocked, or outright banned. In a controversial move, Facebook has gone as far as to form its own “Supreme court.” The intent of this is to determine what is, or is not, allowed on their site. However, this has lead to many conspiracy theories.

Fourth Amendment

Under the fourth amendment, all citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, and property. At this point, we may as well just rule this one a dead right. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen what happens to those who dare to defy their government overlords. While initially, the “safety protocols” were mere suggestions, people have been brutally beaten and arrested by police. Their crime? Daring to run their businesses.

There are many articles discussing how the police have arrested business owners for literally committing no crime. By violating the “recomendations,” and being arrested for it, proves that these are not just suggestions. Furthermore, they demonstrate the more disturbing image at hand. It was Adolf Hitler who once said:

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” For many, this is what’s happening. Of course, when it’s a $1000+ fine for not wearing a suggestion on your face, it does seem plausible.

Sixth Amendment

The right to a speedy trial. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know that this has been absent. Upon getting arrested, one could expect to sit in jail for an undetermined amount of time, with no courtdate. Why? Because the courts shutdown. While this is starting to change, it doesn’t change the fact that this right may had potentially been violated. Of course, this is just another cog in the political wheel.

What we have seen is nothing less than government operated terrorism on its people. Criminals are being released from jails/prisons over alleged COVID fears. However, people are being sent to jail simply for operating their own businesses. Places where facemasks are “mandatory,” don’t even care what you wear on your face. A person can walk aroumd with tissue paper on their face and have no problem.

From what I have seen, this os a game to strip citizens, using fear and false numbers, of their constitutional rights. The worst part of this, we are allowing it. When you really begin to dig into this, the contradictions become very apparant. This situation is no longer about protecting the people or preventing the spread of a virus, which has an approx 3% fatality rate globally. This is a war in which it is the government vs. the people.

Port of Seattle officer on leave following video

By now, most of you are probably familiar with the name, Greg Anderson. This, soon to be former officer, was made famous when he posted a video encouraging officers to NOT uphold illegal orders to stay at home. Though the video was met with much praise, including from his department, that has quickly changed.

Anderson, three days after making the viral video, the department he worked for, began demanding the video to be removed. Using various claims, including equipment being identifiable and policy, the intimidation failed. Anderson, who held his ground, was ultimately suspended pending termination due to policy violation.

War on Corruption reached out multiple times to the department, asking what policy was violated. Though the department has read our messages, they blatently refused to reply. With that, we found alternative methods of obtaining their social media policies.

It didn’t take long for us to understand why they refused to respond. Starting at policy 5: 125-POL 2, we found it to be extremely vague. A portion of the policy reads as follows:

Engaging in prohibited speech outlined in this policy may provide grounds for discipline and may be used to undermine or impeach an officer’s testimony in legal proceedings.

The issue here is it leaves the department open to select what language is inapropriate speech. In fact, the closest we get is:

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that includes harassment, threats of violence, or similar conduct

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that ridicules, maligns, disparages, expresses bias, or disrespect toward any race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other protected class of individuals

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that suggests that Department personnel are engaged in behavior reasonably considered to be unlawful or reckless toward public safety

Even the above, in many aspects is vague, leaving it open for the department to utilize the policy as they see fit. Even so, the claims the department made for wanting the video removed seem invalid.

Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy here.

Should the department decide to respond, we will place it within this article. Until then, it is to our opinion that what is being done is nothing short of an unethical removal of one of the few good officers this country has.

Concentra: Are they abusing customers?

It’s not often that we take a leap and target a medical facility. Of course, it’s not often that we see as many complaints against one as that of Concentra. We began looking into this medical chain due to various reports of hostility, forcing patients to leave (some needing medical attention,) and incompetent staff/doctors.

During my investigation I made two visits. Using the most basic medical need, a drug test, I walked in without a mask, and then with one. The experience, to say the least, were interesting. Without the mask, the staff made no attempt to maintain a form of professionalism. No sooner had I walked into the door, the nurse, working the front desk had stated, “If you’re going to come in here, you must have a mask. Otherwise, you can get out.” At this point, they had no idea as to why I was there.

After going to a local shop, picking up a makeshift mask, I returned to the Concentra facility. This time their demeanor had completely changed. Though thanked me for the mask. At that point, I advised them of my article and inveatigation. Things got a bit unusual at this point. They repeatedly apologized for their rudeness, telling me it was corporate’s doing. Basically, her attitude is the fault of the company.

At that point, I terminated the drug test. Afterall, I didn’t really need one. With the knowledge obtained, I took my investigation online. I began with Facebook reviews before proceeding to reviews posted to other sites. Removing the positive reviews, what we found fell into the same categories: unprofessionalism, medical incompetence, disregard of patient needs.

The reviews talk about being denied medical treatments, doctors berating patients, employees who are rude, and the list goes on. With so many reviews sharing this commonality it isn’t surprising they average at 2.3 and an F with the BBB.

While we understand that not all employees are not a reflection of these mentioned aspects, it doesn’t change the fact that the company has something evidently wrong within its business practices and culture. Until now, WoC had ignored most of the complaints sent to us. However, this article was eventually going to happen. Seeing it first hand, it’s clear that patient respect is an issue. It’s clear that they, on an overall scale, don’t care. For a medical facility, one has to ask, “is this really the sort of environment that is condusive for patients needing assistance?”

P4P targets journalist

If you ask any journalist they will most likely tell you, “journalism isn’t an easy job.” This is especially true when it comes to reporting on predators and scammers. Journalist, Meko Haze of discuss global, has been reporting on the lengthy criminal activities of the 501(c)4, “Punished for Protecting (P4P.) While we have, in the past, covered articles on this very organization, we have never gotten the backlash that he has endured.

P4P alleges that they are an advocacy group. Desperate families, who utilize their services, quickly learn that this “nonprofit” organization is anything but nonprofit. With excessive fees, that range into the thousands, families are given false hope and misinformation by this group; that is just the tip of this iceberg.

The information provided to these families falls into the category of “sovereign citizenship.” If you are unfamiliar with what this is, here is a brief explanation. In short, they believe in “God’s law.” They do not recognize any laws passed by the courts, and are recognized by the government as being a terrorist group. P4P had been exposed countless times for spreading this sort of information, alongside false affadavits. This is where our article picks up, regarding Meko Haze.

Following what is clearly his moral convictions, Meko began a campaign of sharing information. The information discussed how P4P’s founder, Francesca Amato, alongside several others, were breaking multiple laws. Unlike our platform, Meko did get retaliation. While most of it has been the typical nonsense we journalists deal with daily, the group decided to step it up a level.

The accused initially claimed that the journalist was, in fact, paid by CPS to derail their movement. We have found nothing that proves the claim. What we did find, sadly, is the claims didn’t end there. Other claims included child trafficking, pedophilia, and even being a fraud himself exist. This failed to silence Meko.

Earlier tonight, I watched a live video broadcasted by Meko. The video took a rather disturbing turn when Robert Slaven, boyfriend of Amato, joined the comments. Though being given multiple oppurtunities to call-in live and be interviewed, Slaven declined. Instead, he left a variety of comments that contained implied threats of bodily harm against the journalist.

While it was clear that Slaven intended to proclaim innocence of the various crimes, some being felonies, his actions only further harmed that notion. Another fact that has harmed them stems from the families they claim to have helped. We have seen cases in which the families spoke against the organization. One such case came from overseas. While a relative lives in the States, P4P took $5000 from an elderly couple. Worst of all, it didn’t stop there. After violating a “stay at home” order, due to the SARS-CoV-2 situation, the organization demanded an additional $3000 from the couple.

With the nation being in a state of shutdown, including courts, this leads me to not only ask, “why did they really go to California?” But also, “where did the money really go?” It is estimated that a trip to California, from New York, would only cost around $1000. This meams, if they really went as they claim, there is a lot of money unaccounted for.

This is the same conclusion, Meko had come to. The same conclusion that has gotten him threats of bodily harm from alleged P4P representatives. Beyond that, it has also gotten the police called.

Recently, Meko attempted to reach out to Amato, using the number she claims is for her organization. After answering the phone as her organization, Meko speaks. At this point, she tells him to never call her personal phone again, insults him, and abruptly disconnects the call. This call lead her to file a police report against the journalist. This report brings about a few problems, however.

To start, by answering the phone as your organization, she is not claiming it as a personal number, as she attempted to claim. Furthermore, by filing the report with police, she is willfully making a false accusation. To be a legitimate claim, he would of had to call her personal number. Since he made the call during a live video, her claim can be easily disproven, and I hold no doubt that it will be.

There is a fine line between harassing a journalist and outright conducting in criminal activity against one. When that line is crossed, it is time for accountability. I have no doubt that Meko has already gathered evidence to use in court, nor do I doubt his integrity. What I do doubt, is an organization, that claims to be for children, exploiting families and bullying those who speak out. Both of these are actions P4P are guilty of. If you would like to read more on this organizations, articles are linked below.

Francesca Amato uses covid-19 fears to scam family out of 5000

501(c)3 not found

Advocate scam

Advocate exploits sexual abuse victim

Secret congressional meeting

Local shop accused of predatory practices

UPDATE: The store in question has released a statement. We are including it here.

We understand everyone’s concern, we Will match or beat any advertisers price on any product that we carry. Business needs to carry on, We sell protective gear along with many other businesses. If we ever have a price that you think is too high we will do our best to beat or match competitors price. We sell essential ite.ms, and these products are needed by people locally because all of the supplies are going to hospitals. These products need to be available for the public and we are doing our best to bring these products to you for the best prices possible. I understand that we are under attack, but we are here to talk, and I know that if you find a better price let me know. We get these gloves from our supplier, and I think that people should understand that these products are necessary for the regular people too. We will be glad to talk to anyone about any concerns that you know. anyone commenting are doing this based on hype and not because you have been charged too much because we bring low prices. There has been a brigade against me, but I have called the Board of Health who gave me the guidelines for me to sell these essential products. We are doing a service and I hope anyone mad can give me a call or stop in for the best possible price. NOBODY that ACTUALLY knows me or visits my store will see that we will do everything possible to bring you the products that you want for the besyt possibe price.

Additional information
We recieved photographs containing the prices of items that no longer appear on the site. We are posting them here.

_________________________________________


Recently, the ‘Director of sales and Marketing,’ Lindsay Catherine Lorence, recieved backlash after posting, “We’ve got all the essentials! Stop by Treasure Point or hit me up! 206 Marine Drive, Anderson. 765.643.5822.” The backlash stems after it was discovered that she, acting on behalf of her business, ‘Treasure Point,’ had apparantly bought out available supplies at other local retailers before allegedly price gouging the items for resell.

The post, which amounted to a lot of controversy, shows that the small business may have been hoarding the items.

The above shown items bring even more question due to the fact the store is listed as being a ‘car stereo’ and ‘motorsports’ retailer. However, predatorial business practices, post the SARS-CoVID-2, outbreak, aren’t unheard of.

Recently, there was public outcry when a Tennesse resident began stockpiling supplies for resell on Amazon. In the end, he was forced to donate the items, currently faces charges for price gouging, and had his items removed from the site.

When looking at ‘Treasure Point’s’ previous images, we found no indication that the store, prior to the outbreak, ever carried the items they are now accused of gouging. For this reason, and due to the outcry, we reached out to the store for comment. Currently, we have gotten no response.

Sadly, unethical practices such as this are becoming all to common. For Indiana residents, the state to which this store is located, a consumer complaint can be filed with the following telephone numbers: 1.800.382.5516 or 317.232.6330. Alternatively, an online complaint can be made here.